If we are to have a democracy that can concentrate on anything even remotely progressive, we have the televise these trials. Trump will do what he always does--he will say one thing and act one way in court then go out and rile up and lie to his base at a rally, inciting more violence. When Nixon went into the Watergate hearings, he was …
If we are to have a democracy that can concentrate on anything even remotely progressive, we have the televise these trials. Trump will do what he always does--he will say one thing and act one way in court then go out and rile up and lie to his base at a rally, inciting more violence. When Nixon went into the Watergate hearings, he was at a 70 % approval rating. By the time the hearings were televised the polls were in the toilet--I think like 14 %. Trial transparency did that. Trump blusters at his rallies--he won't be able to do that in court. When people see the evidence many voters on the fence minds will changed--and we NEED that or we will lose, not only the election, but seats in the house and senate due to a sea of misinformation and Hunter Biden redirection. I don't want to hear his name ever again either, can't stand his voice of the mere sight of him, but turning our back and allowing him to frame the courthouse narrative without significant push back is dangerous and at our peril. A Trump win will dismantle the EPA, in fact, all progressive and liberal advocacy will be punished by jail time, count on it. No one will be able to speak up about any policy that doesn't line Rethug pockets. To me televising the trials is another weapon in the dem arsenal against disinformation and is essential to getting the swing vote. MAGA is already lost, but reasonable people can be swayed. Losing just ain't an option if we want to save our republic and be able to pursue a progressive agenda that includes climate change.
I respect the argument. But I have a few problems with the Nixon/Watergate comparison. Nixon wasn’t a cult. Nixon was never tried in court, nor did he appear at Watergate hearings. Trump was impeached twice, with televised hearings, which failed to convict him, but kept his face and his persona in a monopoly of national conversation. It is certainly possible that you are correct that televising a trial will win over low information people. I believe that a winning electoral strategy leaves Trump completely out of the picture, and just concentrates on the agenda.
Problem is Democrats always focus on agenda and yet we still get trounced. We simply do not win on our ideas alone even though they help people, even those who vote against us. If we won strictly on merit alone, we would win handily because the rethugs only have hate, vitriol and outright lies. They should not be able to win at all based on their ideas, so the fault kinda lies a bit with us. They also lie about our agenda, i.e., we want to kill babies at birth as opposed to the idea that abortion is a healthcare and bodily autonomy issue for women. Trump does have a cult following but some have been shaken awake with evidence. They have to get out of his thrall, however, and some might with obvious presented evidence. Video, firsthand accounts, testimony--all are evidence. I just think folks need to see the overwhelming body of evidence firsthand. Jeff is also right that a visual record cannot be disputed and can be put in a historical locker. They can say anything about the proceedings if we don't get to see it. My two cents anyway.
If we are to have a democracy that can concentrate on anything even remotely progressive, we have the televise these trials. Trump will do what he always does--he will say one thing and act one way in court then go out and rile up and lie to his base at a rally, inciting more violence. When Nixon went into the Watergate hearings, he was at a 70 % approval rating. By the time the hearings were televised the polls were in the toilet--I think like 14 %. Trial transparency did that. Trump blusters at his rallies--he won't be able to do that in court. When people see the evidence many voters on the fence minds will changed--and we NEED that or we will lose, not only the election, but seats in the house and senate due to a sea of misinformation and Hunter Biden redirection. I don't want to hear his name ever again either, can't stand his voice of the mere sight of him, but turning our back and allowing him to frame the courthouse narrative without significant push back is dangerous and at our peril. A Trump win will dismantle the EPA, in fact, all progressive and liberal advocacy will be punished by jail time, count on it. No one will be able to speak up about any policy that doesn't line Rethug pockets. To me televising the trials is another weapon in the dem arsenal against disinformation and is essential to getting the swing vote. MAGA is already lost, but reasonable people can be swayed. Losing just ain't an option if we want to save our republic and be able to pursue a progressive agenda that includes climate change.
I respect the argument. But I have a few problems with the Nixon/Watergate comparison. Nixon wasn’t a cult. Nixon was never tried in court, nor did he appear at Watergate hearings. Trump was impeached twice, with televised hearings, which failed to convict him, but kept his face and his persona in a monopoly of national conversation. It is certainly possible that you are correct that televising a trial will win over low information people. I believe that a winning electoral strategy leaves Trump completely out of the picture, and just concentrates on the agenda.
Problem is Democrats always focus on agenda and yet we still get trounced. We simply do not win on our ideas alone even though they help people, even those who vote against us. If we won strictly on merit alone, we would win handily because the rethugs only have hate, vitriol and outright lies. They should not be able to win at all based on their ideas, so the fault kinda lies a bit with us. They also lie about our agenda, i.e., we want to kill babies at birth as opposed to the idea that abortion is a healthcare and bodily autonomy issue for women. Trump does have a cult following but some have been shaken awake with evidence. They have to get out of his thrall, however, and some might with obvious presented evidence. Video, firsthand accounts, testimony--all are evidence. I just think folks need to see the overwhelming body of evidence firsthand. Jeff is also right that a visual record cannot be disputed and can be put in a historical locker. They can say anything about the proceedings if we don't get to see it. My two cents anyway.